# No uterus, no comments!



## limblips

I love the pro-choicers rhetoric of "if you don't have a uterus, your opinion doesn't matter" but the same people support transgender non-uterus athletes competing against biological women.

The left also loudly proclaim that "the science is settled" when it comes to climate yet refuse to believe the biological science of only 2 genders.

Hypocrites.


----------



## Hijinx

limblips said:


> I love the pro-choicers rhetoric of "if you don't have a uterus, your opinion doesn't matter" but the same people support transgender non-uterus athletes competing against biological women.
> 
> The left also loudly proclaim that "the science is settled" when it comes to climate yet refuse to believe the biological science of only 2 genders.
> 
> Hypocrites.



More like damned fools.


----------



## BOP

Yet they expect non-uterus bearing individuals to bear the cost of all this health care, including birth control (abortion being a subset), as well as the cost of actually raising their spawn.


----------



## BOP

EXCLUSIVE: Producer Adam Trahan ‘Shouts The Abortion’ That ‘Changed Me Forever’
					

Producer Adam Trahan was silent for years about the abortion that he says changed his life — but one tweet sent him "over the edge."




					tinyurl.com
				




_Producer Adam Trahan was silent for years about the abortion that he says changed his life — but one tweet sent him “over the edge” Thursday, and he hasn’t looked back since.

“I’d been getting increasingly frustrated by the preponderance of this ‘shout your abortion/no uterus, no say’ nonsense, and Liz Plank’s tweet sent me over the edge,” Trahantold The Daily Caller via email. _


----------



## GURPS

limblips said:


> I love the pro-choicers rhetoric of "if you don't have a uterus, your opinion doesn't matter"




Awesome then WOMYN can support this with baked sales and girl scout cookies


----------



## limblips

BOP said:


> EXCLUSIVE: Producer Adam Trahan ‘Shouts The Abortion’ That ‘Changed Me Forever’
> 
> 
> Producer Adam Trahan was silent for years about the abortion that he says changed his life — but one tweet sent him "over the edge."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinyurl.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Producer Adam Trahan was silent for years about the abortion that he says changed his life — but one tweet sent him “over the edge” Thursday, and he hasn’t looked back since.
> 
> “I’d been getting increasingly frustrated by the preponderance of this ‘shout your abortion/no uterus, no say’ nonsense, and Liz Plank’s tweet sent me over the edge,” Trahantold The Daily Caller via email. _



I saw a meme the other day to the effect of:  My uterus + My choice = None of your business.

The pro-choicers make it my business when my tax money is used to enable abortion and my health insurance costs are raised to absorb the costs of pro-choice!  If they use their own resources they can abort themselves for all I care just don't put the financial burden on people who are pro-life.


----------



## seekeroftruth

Well... everyone knows how I feel about abortion..... so I might as well chime in....

I looked at it.... I agree government has no right telling women what to do with their bodies..... I wonder how men would react if Congress passed a law about surgery on their penises..... I bet they'd be Shechem bent by that..... 

The law they are talking about gives a woman weeks to make the decision..... and let's face it ladies... pregnancy tests have come a long way since I had my babies.... rabbits were dying everywhere all the time back then.... now the results are fairly reliable in just a couple days and the test can be bought in any drug store..... women can still have their abortion on demand.....

What this law really does.... is put a hurting on the baby body parts black market..... Smaller fetus.... not so many usable parts.....  It's gross but it really all this law would change.... 

If a doctor shows a medical necessity.... even after 6 weeks... then everything is ok still.... surgery can change....

AND.... it will put a hurting on the "perfect baby" people... those who have some idea about the DNA of the perfect baby would have to accept the baby as it is after 6 weeks... instead of disposing of a baby who "sucks their thumb in the womb" for one who doesn't because they think it's a better attitude.... or something equally as appalling.

I'm not worried about this abortion law.... it's the same as the old laws.... babies will still be sacrificed.... doctors will still be there to assist.... they just have to say it was a medical problem... like they do now.

It's all smoke and mirrors.... politics as usual.... nothing to see here.... just a bunch of politicians taking the Christian's minds off the church shootings.

But that's just my opinion.... and I'm too old to have any more babies....


----------



## black dog

Same old bullsh!t straw men here, none of you can post proof of tax dollars being used, but yet you all constantly cry about tax dollars being used.
Its nobody's ****ing business what medical decisions women make in there lives.


----------



## vraiblonde

I am pro-choice but I think the Left's obsession with abortion is gross.  There's so much going on in this country, not to mention the world, and this is the most important issue to them??  

I have to believe that they're a Party of mindless idiots who rage on command.  Abortion rights just really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.  When you look at children in drug infested ghettos who fear for their lives every day and have no future in front of them, do you really want to waste your voice advocating for killing fetuses?


----------



## Kyle

If there is one thing the Democratic Party has convinced me of it would be the need for euthanasia.

They accumulate of every person with a mental illness in the nation and redirect it to attacking the country from within.


----------



## seekeroftruth

much ado about nothing... all political... babies will still die... moms will still have on demand... and doctors will still find the medical emergency....   much ado about nothing.


----------



## limblips

black dog said:


> Same old bullsh!t straw men here, none of you can post proof of tax dollars being used, but yet you all constantly cry about tax dollars being used.
> Its nobody's ****ing business what medical decisions women make in there lives.



Google is your friend.  It will also help you with the use of their, there and they're since you appear to need it.


----------



## Merlin99

black dog said:


> Same old bullsh!t straw men here, none of you can post proof of tax dollars being used, but yet you all constantly cry about tax dollars being used.
> Its nobody's ****ing business what medical decisions women make in there lives.


See I have no problem with abortion, I kind of think more than half of the women having kids shouldn't and the ones who should have kids aren't. But your complete dismissal of the idea that tax money being fungible means that yes we are paying for abortions seems to be willful blindness.


----------



## Yooper

seekeroftruth said:


> I agree government has no right telling women what to do with their bodies..... I wonder how men would react if Congress passed a law about surgery on their penises.....


Here's where we part ways (in that I think your analogy falls short).

If abortion was just about a uterus, then the "penis" analogy stands up. But abortion is not about the uterus, it's about the "thing" inhabiting the uterus (or soon to inhabit).

So abortion advocates would be on better ground if they dumped the "my body, my choice" mantra because there is an object inside her body that has DNA different from the woman and that "thing" doesn't get an opportunity to make the same argument/appeal. In today's day and age of anti-bullying, a woman claiming supremacy of "my body, my choice" over the "thing's" "my body, my choice" is the ultimate in bullying (and irony).

A better, more accurate argument would be to claim the "thing" in the uterus is some sort of parasite. But that won't work because it would speak volumes about what the pro-abortion gang truly thinks about humanity and human life. It's also cold and clinical. So they go with the fundamentally inaccurate "my body, my choice" because it has emotional appeal. It also plays as the "I am woman, hear me roar" anecdote to the "women held down by the Patriarchy" and thus, highly persuasive. Because anyone who speaks against it is accused of sexism, misogyny, etc.



seekeroftruth said:


> I bet they'd be Shechem bent by that.....


Excellent. Making people work for the reference! Well done!

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> Same old bullsh!t straw men here, none of you can post proof of tax dollars being used, but yet you all constantly cry about tax dollars being used.
> Its nobody's ****ing business what medical decisions women make in there lives.


I agree that it is not my business what decisions women make for their own medical treatment.   It's their decision in the killing of someone else that bothers me.

The whole "my uterus" thing is inherently stupid.  The same argument could be used for rape: "my penis, my choice!!"  The problem is not that someone wants to ejaculate, it's that they want to impact someone else.  If nonpregnant women want to undergo abortion procedures, that's fine.  Just don't kill someone else to do it.


----------



## Yooper

seekeroftruth said:


> ...and doctors will still find the medical emergency....


The sad truth stated simply in eight words.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## black dog

limblips said:


> Google is your friend.  It will also help you with the use of their, there and they're since you appear to need it.



Like I posted, you have no proof and thus feel the need to be an Nazi, Looks like that English Degree your dad payed for was, money well spent.
 He should be proud that you, your , you're an internet spelling policeman.

*“It is a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word.”*

― Andrew Jackson


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> Same old bullsh!t straw men here, none of you can post proof of tax dollars being used, but yet you all constantly cry about tax dollars being used.
> Its nobody's ****ing business what medical decisions women make in there lives.


I posted their statement and tax filings showing that they don't separate their funds. What more proof do you need?


----------



## Yooper

black dog said:


> Like I posted, you have no proof....


Abortions are paid for using tax dollars though it is done more indirectly than directly. Planned Parenthood is the perfect example. It makes a big deal that no Federal funds are used for abortions, Federal funds are used to pay for other goods/services that then allows PP to use other funds to pay for abortions.

So it's a bit of a spreadsheet accounting game.

My suggestion would be to defund PP of any public dollars and see how PP allocated the private funds coming in. My hypothesis is that a significant percentage of the cash would go to being an abortion provider at the expense of other goods and services.

EDIT: Sapidus said this post was stupid. So let me explain what my line of thinking was.... This was less a post about the the use of funds than a post wondering what PP says its main business is as opposed to what its main business actually was. We know that PP does not use public funding to provide abortions. However, it does use public money to finance its other activities. I would be curious to know - if public funding were withdrawn - how much of PP's private funding for abortions would be diverted to pay for the things it uses public funds for. My gut is not much b/c PP is first and foremost an abortion provider where public funds are used to provide cover for PP's main business.

It would be an interesting Null Hypothesis.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> I posted their statement and tax filings showing that they don't separate their funds. What more proof do you need?



 My business tax filing doesn't show separate funds, the two non profit conservation clubs I belong to don't show separation of funds on their taxes. does your business tax filing show separate funds?...
If you truly believe that PP is breaking Federal law I would suggest that you get all of you that feel that way and file suit against them.


----------



## glhs837

black dog said:


> Same old bullsh!t straw men here, none of you can post proof of tax dollars being used, but yet you all constantly cry about tax dollars being used.
> Its nobody's ****ing business what medical decisions women make in there lives.




Forbes say this..... 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...n-taxpayers-paying-for-abortion/#606c7fdc6a4b 



> As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S. with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions,  this is equivalent to taxpayers paying the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers  and 180,000 financed by state taxpayers


----------



## Yooper

glhs837 said:


> Forbes say this.....
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...n-taxpayers-paying-for-abortion/#606c7fdc6a4b


Nice find. T/Y.

This was paragraph that seems to settled the question  of "does or does not":


> A first-trimester abortion costs $397 vs. $854 for a second-trimester procedure, but the fraction of abortions financed using insurance (public or private) is nearly identical (25% for second-term versus 22.6% for first-term). *Abortions are financed in a variety of ways*. According to a Guttmacher Institute survey in 2011, 69% of abortions are paid for entirely out of pocket. Another *15.6% report using Medicaid*, while 7.3% used a non-Medicaid source of coverage (although this 2011 survey did not indicate the type of coverage--employer-sponsored or non-group, etc.). 8.6% reported not knowing whether they used third party coverage.



--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Merlin99

black dog said:


> My business tax filing doesn't show separate funds, the two non profit conservation clubs I belong to don't show separation of funds on their taxes. does your business tax filing show separate funds?...
> If you truly believe that PP is breaking Federal law I would suggest that you get all of you that feel that way and file suit against them.


That reply is as useless as the "lets impeach Trump" rallying cry, theirs no political will to actually accomplish anything but make headlines. If their was the will to accomplish something either way it would be done through legislation instead of punting it to the judicial system.


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> My business tax filing doesn't show separate funds, the two non profit conservation clubs I belong to don't show separation of funds on their taxes. does your business tax filing show separate funds?...
> If you truly believe that PP is breaking Federal law I would suggest that you get all of you that feel that way and file suit against them.


Are you required to show separation of funding?

I don't think, nor did I claim, that they're violating federal law.  As I've mentioned, abortion for the life of the mother is entirely legal to use federal funds to cover, thus the purchase of the equipment to do so is entirely legal.  We know that they don't have separate "elective abortion" buildings, so we know the rent is partially offset by federal funds.  We know that the doctors don't have separate "elective abortion" malpractice insurance, so we know that is offset by taxpayer dollars.  We know that the PP management is not separated by "elective abortion" management and "all other procedures" management, so we know that we taxpayers fund them as well. 

So we know that elective abortion is not paid for by taxpayers except for the equipment, the facilities, the supplies, the insurance costs for the doctors, the utilities, and the management.


----------



## limblips

black dog said:


> Like I posted, you have no proof and thus feel the need to be an Nazi, Looks like that English Degree your dad payed for was, money well spent.
> He should be proud that you, your , you're an internet spelling policeman.
> 
> *“It is a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word.”*
> 
> ― Andrew Jackson


I don't have a college degree.   Elementary school taught me basic grammar and spelling.  As for your quote, why do we have dictionaries if spelling is arbitrary?  Without rules the language is disjointed and incoherent.


----------



## officeguy

So if you don't pay federal income tax, you are not allowed to comment on tax policy.

I am fine with that.


----------



## vraiblonde

black dog said:


> and thus feel the need to be an Nazi



Whup!  You lose.  Better luck next time.


----------



## black dog

vraiblonde said:


> Whup!  You lose.  Better luck next time.


I don't believe so..


----------



## black dog

limblips said:


> I don't have a college degree.   Elementary school taught me basic grammar and spelling.  As for your quote, why do we have dictionaries if spelling is arbitrary?  Without rules the language is disjointed and incoherent.



 Disjointed and incoherent.... LOL........ Yet no one has a problem understanding what I type, post or speak... Or has a problem reading a bill I send or cashing a paycheck that I right and sign.


----------



## limblips

black dog said:


> Disjointed and incoherent.... LOL........ Yet no one has a problem understanding what I type, post or speak... Or has a problem reading a bill I send or cashing a paycheck that I right and sign.


And you talk strawman.  You are a hoot.


----------



## black dog

limblips said:


> And you talk strawman.  You are a hoot.


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> cashing a paycheck that I right and sign.


ISWYDT


however, you are wrong to suggest no one has proven to you that elective abortions given at PP are partially funded by taxpayers.  It's clear that they are.

however, PP is in full compliance with the law - they do not directly charge taxpayers for those procedures.

And, the idea that "no uterus, no comments" is equally flawed.  Until it is deemed it's appropriate to drive by a woman beating her child in the street to death, it will not be inappropriate to not be against a woman hiring someone to suck their child into a blender and grind it up.


----------



## luvmygdaughters

It would be interesting to see, how many of the participants in PP abortions, are paying taxes?


----------



## vraiblonde

luvmygdaughters said:


> It would be interesting to see, how many of the participants in PP abortions, are paying taxes?



Probably most of them.  The welfare queens have their kids because they're worth more crack money.


----------



## stgislander

Question... PP says that they perform all these other women's medical services besides abortion, but I'm not aware of any one that's availed themselves of them.  With health depts in rural areas and free/low cost medical clinics in urban areas, does anyone know of someone that's used PP for these other services?


----------



## Toxick

If men had uteruses, they'd be called duderuses.



And brovaries.


----------



## Sapidus

vraiblonde said:


> I am pro-choice but I think the Left's obsession with abortion is gross.  There's so much going on in this country, not to mention the world, and this is the most important issue to them??
> 
> I have to believe that they're a Party of mindless idiots who rage on command.  Abortion rights just really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.  When you look at children in drug infested ghettos who fear for their lives every day and have no future in front of them, do you really want to waste your voice advocating for killing fetuses?




How is that the left is obsessed when the right are the ones continually trying to pass more and more restrictive legislation when the law has been settled since Roe VS Wade?

What are you even ranting about?


----------



## Sapidus

Yooper said:


> Abortions are paid for using tax dollars though it is done more indirectly than directly. Planned Parenthood is the perfect example. It makes a big deal that no Federal funds are used for abortions, Federal funds are used to pay for other goods/services that then allows PP to use other funds to pay for abortions.
> 
> So it's a bit of a spreadsheet accounting game.
> 
> My suggestion would be to defund PP of any public dollars and see how PP allocated the private funds coming in. My hypothesis is that a significant percentage of the cash would go to being an abortion provider at the expense of other goods and services.
> 
> It would be an interesting Null Hypothesis.
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)




What a stupid argument.  Take away a portion of their funding and then see how they allocate the remaining funds.

Do you even listen to yourself before you start to type?


----------



## Sapidus

seekeroftruth said:


> much ado about nothing... all political... babies will still die... moms will still have on demand... and doctors will still find the medical emergency....   much ado about nothing.




What about the mothers who find out their child has a life threatening deformity or that their pregnancy could possibly kill them.  There are many examples of this despite you decreeing "its all about nothing , that aren't detected at six weeks.

Are you a medical expert of any kind?


----------



## Sapidus

limblips said:


> Google is your friend.  It will also help you with the use of their, there and they're since you appear to need it.



Ok.  Then google me up some proof that your tax dollars go to fund abortions as your proclaim.


----------



## glhs837

So the Forbes piece was wrong?


----------



## luvmygdaughters

vraiblonde said:


> Probably most of them.  The welfare queens have their kids because they're worth more crack money.


I didnt think of that!  You're probably right!!


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> Ok.  Then google me up some proof that your tax dollars go to fund abortions as your proclaim.


Personally, I have posted their most recent financial statements and tax filings.   Proof positive is there that the only taxpayer funds used for abortion are equipment, facilities, utilities, supplies medical insurance, and management.  Other than that, not a thing.


----------



## limblips

Sapidus said:


> Ok.  Then google me up some proof that your tax dollars go to fund abortions as your proclaim.


Do your own search.  You made a statement.  Prove it or STFU.


----------



## officeguy

stgislander said:


> Question... PP says that they perform all these other women's medical services besides abortion, but I'm not aware of any one that's availed themselves of them.  With health depts in rural areas and free/low cost medical clinics in urban areas, does anyone know of someone that's used PP for these other services?



They do provide other services. They hand hout condoms and tell kids about the great world of transgenderism. Every condom they hand out gets counted as a 'service', every person who attends a seminar is a 'contact'. And like magic, they can claim that 'abortion is only x% of the services they provide'. 
The reality is, the majority of their business volume is in abortions and there are folks who make good money working for them.


----------



## RoseRed

Didn't anyone see the movie Unplanned?


----------



## GURPS

Sapidus said:


> when the law has been settled since Roe VS Wade?



because like science short bus Law is NEVER Settled
otherwise blacks would still be slaves



Sapidus said:


> their child has a life threatening deformity or  that their pregnancy could possibly kill them.




that is NOT the reason for 99% of the Murders of the Unborn


----------



## Yooper

Sapidus said:


> What a stupid argument.  Take away a portion of their funding and then see how they allocate the remaining funds.
> 
> Do you even listen to yourself before you start to type?


It seems clear you were in a hurry to fire off a response and didn't understand the hypothesis I proposed.

May I suggest then that you reread what I wrote. If it still isn't clear let me know. I'd be happy to walk you through it.

Cheers.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## GURPS

Yooper said:


> It seems clear you were in a hurry to fire off a response and didn't understand the hypothesis I proposed.




Seriously .. what else do you expect from this guy


----------



## seekeroftruth

Sapidus said:


> What about the mothers who find out their child has a life threatening deformity or that their pregnancy could possibly kill them.  There are many examples of this despite you decreeing "its all about nothing , that aren't detected at six weeks.
> 
> Are you a medical expert of any kind?



They are covered by the law.  Medical emergencies that will endanger the mother or child are acceptable measures under the law.  Of course some doctors will lie.... and when they are found to be blatant liars offering abortion on demand.... then they are the ones that will do the 99 years......

This is all smoke an mirrors to get your minds off of other issues.  This "strict" law doesn't change anything.....  AND wasn't Roe V Wade about the father's right?  Wasn't Roe V Wade about a man who wanted to save his child from the abortionist.... in spite of the woman's desire?

The people at Planned Parenthood will still have baby body parts for the black market.... only now they will have to be a little more discreet and claim it's for "medical testing".... yep like doesn't the client want a 7 month fetus?..... to make the arm fit.... gross but that's what this is really about.... In my humble opinion....


----------



## Clem72

black dog said:


> Same old bullsh!t straw men here, none of you can post proof of tax dollars being used, but yet you all constantly cry about tax dollars being used.
> Its nobody's ****ing business what medical decisions women make in there lives.



Which is also a giant straw man. The argument isn't about what woman do with their own bodies and their own medical decisions. They care what is being done to the baby. So phrasing it as a disagreement over personal choice is intentionally mischaracterizing the issue.

If instead you argued about WHEN it constitutes a baby, then maybe we could agree to have a discussion. But if your yelling "HER BODY HER DECISION" at 20 weeks, then you can shove that argument right up your own keester.


----------



## glhs837

Clem72 said:


> . So phrasing it as a disagreement over personal choice is intentionally mischaracterizing the issue.



Wait, wait, you can do that? Wow, that opens up a world of possibilities......


----------



## Sapidus

seekeroftruth said:


> They are covered by the law.  Medical emergencies that will endanger the mother or child are acceptable measures under the law.  Of course some doctors will lie.... and when they are found to be blatant liars offering abortion on demand.... then they are the ones that will do the 99 years......
> 
> This is all smoke an mirrors to get your minds off of other issues.  This "strict" law doesn't change anything.....  AND wasn't Roe V Wade about the father's right?  Wasn't Roe V Wade about a man who wanted to save his child from the abortionist.... in spite of the woman's desire?
> 
> The people at Planned Parenthood will still have baby body parts for the black market.... only now they will have to be a little more discreet and claim it's for "medical testing".... yep like doesn't the client want a 7 month fetus?..... to make the arm fit.... gross but that's what this is really about.... In my humble opinion....




I'm not going to keep arguing with you as you apparently haven't even read the new legislation much less understand it based on your inane ramblings its clear you have an agenda and a very misguided view of the facts


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> I'm not going to keep arguing with you as you apparently haven't even read the new legislation much less understand it based on your inane ramblings its clear you have an agenda and a very misguided view of the facts


Hey, at least she has a view of the facts.  your view doesn't cover FACTS at all!


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> Hey, at least she has a view of the facts.  your view doesn't cover FACTS at all!



Especially the part,,,, *The people at Planned Parenthood will still have baby body parts for the black market. *
  WTF....  you all are insane.


----------



## Yooper

black dog said:


> Especially the part,,,, *The people at Planned Parenthood will still have baby body parts for the black market. *
> WTF....  you all are insane.


Honest question (as I'm trying to follow the back and forth).

I'm assuming that your statement was a disagreement with This_person's comment that seekeroftruth had the facts. You believe seekeroftruth is wrong.

So what I'm trying to figure out is what you think she is wrong about. The past (i.e., that PP did it) or the future (i.e., that PP will still do it) or all of it?

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> Especially the part,,,, *The people at Planned Parenthood will still have baby body parts for the black market. *
> WTF....  you all are insane.


The skewed part of that is, of course, "black market".  We know that they sell the body parts, "legally".


----------



## black dog

Yooper said:


> Honest question (as I'm trying to follow the back and forth).
> 
> I'm assuming that your statement was a disagreement with This_person's comment that seekeroftruth had the facts. You believe seekeroftruth is wrong.
> 
> So what I'm trying to figure out is what you think she is wrong about. The past (i.e., that PP did it) or the future (i.e., that PP will still do it) or all of it?
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



All of it, its all unfounded lies.


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> The skewed part of that is, of course, "black market".  We know that they *sell the body parts,* "legally".


 Bullsh!t....


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> All of it, its all unfounded lies.


LOL 

Shirley you're not serious.


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> LOL
> 
> Shirley you're not serious.



 I'm as serious as a heart attack.... For starters just the fact that so many here believe that one shouldn't have the personal choice to make their own medical decisions.


----------



## Yooper

black dog said:


> I'm as serious as a heart attack.... For starters just the fact that so many here believe that one shouldn't have the personal choice to make their own medical decisions.


I honestly don't believe that's the case (i.e., that people here on the forum don't believe in/support personal choice when it comes to one's personal medical affairs).

What I do believe is the case is this....

For those (of us) who have expressed disagreement with abortion the essential question that hasn't been answered by those who are pro-abortion is how one squares the circle that the object being removed is NOT part of the women's body (like a kidney, pancreas, lung, etc.). The object has its own DNA; it is a unique entity. That in and of itself means the argument "my body, my choice" (or, to use your words, "personal choice to make their own medical decisions") is logically flawed: there isn't just one "being" involved.

If we want to argue that this "other being" isn't a person, etc., then let's have that discussion. But to claim that only one "being" is involved (so this is a strictly personal thing) is not just disingenuous it's factually incorrect.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## black dog

Yooper said:


> I honestly don't believe that's the case (i.e., that people here on the forum don't believe in/support personal choice when it comes to one's personal medical affairs).
> 
> What I do believe is the case is this....
> 
> For those (of us) who have expressed disagreement with abortion the essential question that hasn't been answered by those who are pro-abortion is how one squares the circle that the object being removed is NOT part of the women's body (like a kidney, pancreas, lung, etc.). The object has its own DNA; it is a unique entity. That in and of itself means the argument "my body, my choice" (or, to use your words, "personal choice to make their own medical decisions") is logically flawed: there isn't just one "being" involved.
> 
> If we want to argue that this "other being" isn't a person, etc., then let's have that discussion. But to claim that only one "being" is involved (so this is a strictly personal thing) is not just disingenuous it's factually incorrect.
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



I would suggest that you do a site search and all of your questions will be answered.  This has been done here more than once.


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> Bullsh!t....


Dude, with all due respect, the question is not whether PP sells body parts, the question is only whether or not they do it legally.  Of course, they claim they do it legally.



			http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVmMQR51KNkcLKWgR2hTdC2Y%3d
		


You're arguing that PP doesn't do something that they, themselves, say they do.  Try again, my friend!


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> I would suggest that you do a site search and all of your questions will be answered.  This has been done here more than once.


I've been in many of the discussions on abortion.  Never once has a person refuted the science that shows a baby in the womb is not a separate human being.  They've referred to it as a parasite, they've argued against the fact that the baby has its own DNA and is therefore its own person, they've compared it to the 35M bacteria cells per squa


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> I'm as serious as a heart attack.... For starters just the fact that so many here believe that one shouldn't have the personal choice to make their own medical decisions.


Happy to let people make their own medical decisions.

Not happy to let people kill other people.

Again, if an unpregnant woman wants to undergo the procedure that would abort a baby, that is their choice and I fully support them doing so, and paying for it on their own as it would be an elective procedure.  But, when they are pregnant, that procedure kills another human being.  I am not for having them kill another human being.

So, medical decisions for themselves - I'm all in favor.  Medical decisions to electively kill someone else - always going to be against.

As an aside, I am only against the 96+% of abortions that are elective.  The well-under 3% that are for the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, I find should very well be legal as the mother is not responsible for the baby when raped (I include incest in rape), and I consider it self-defense when the life of the mother is challenged.


----------



## glhs837

black dog said:


> I'm as serious as a heart attack.... For starters just the fact that so many here believe that one shouldn't have the personal choice to make their own medical decisions.



I think for a lot of us, it comes down to drawing a line where that mass of cells inside the womans body stops being a mass of cells and becomes a seperate human who gets some protection. Thinking it only happens when that body is outside the mothers strikes most people as ridiculous. Folks are screaming abnout the heartbeat law, but where do you draw that line? Past a certain point of brain development? Once you can see fingers and toes? Help mke out here. dont tell me to search, tell me where you think it stops being a growth and becomes a being? 

I'm not religious in any way, so that's not part of my thinking process, I have no issues with the morning after pill, or even abortions to a certain point, but past a certain point, that's another human in there. And a lot of us think that humans have rights. One of which is to not be killed just becuase you are still helpless inside the wrapper.


----------



## Hijinx

Women can certainly make decision about their own bodies.
If they don't wan children they can simply get their tubes tied at the same time they have the abortion.
Then they don't have to worry about killing any more of them.

Problem solved.


----------



## TCROW

glhs837 said:


> I think for a lot of us, it comes down to drawing a line where that mass of cells inside the womans body stops being a mass of cells and becomes a seperate human who gets some protection. Thinking it only happens when that body is outside the mothers strikes most people as ridiculous. Folks are screaming abnout the heartbeat law, but where do you draw that line? Past a certain point of brain development? Once you can see fingers and toes? Help mke out here. dont tell me to search, tell me where you think it stops being a growth and becomes a being?
> 
> I'm not religious in any way, so that's not part of my thinking process, I have no issues with the morning after pill, or even abortions to a certain point, but past a certain point, that's another human in there. And a lot of us think that humans have rights. One of which is to not be killed just becuase you are still helpless inside the wrapper.



I think the mere fact that cells can divide on their own is the very definition of life. Whether it’s a “viable human” or not is up for debate I suppose. But it is life from the very moment of conception. 

My question is what is the interest of the government in view of the constitution in terms of forcing a woman to carry a full term birth if she doesn’t want to — for whatever reason?

I think that if we believe in the constitution, we’d agree the government cannot force a woman to _not_ carry a fetus to full term. And I equally think the government cannot force a woman _to_ carry a fetus to a full term birth. 

No question that abortion is the darkest side of humanity. No question abortion is a large part of the moral and psychological decay of our modern age. 

I simply don’t see the interest of government in getting involved.


----------



## This_person

TCROW said:


> My question is what is the interest of the government in view of the constitution in terms of forcing a woman to carry a full term birth if she doesn’t want to — for whatever reason?


In that vein, why should there be any murder laws at all?  What is the interest of the government, in view of the constitution, to force Person A to allow Person B to live if Person A does not want Person B to live - for whatever reason?

It is the EXACT same question you asked.  The difference is, Person B is voluntarily/willingly placed inside of Person A in your question, and outside of Person A in mine.  But, other than that completely voluntary and willing act by Person A, the question remains the same.

So, if Person B happens to be entirely dependent upon Person A - in the form of Person A being the primary care provider for Person B, we can come closer to the same question - as in, why should a baby be allowed to live when the baby is a month old, and mom/dad simply no longer wants to care for that baby?

The reasonable response is that the baby is the responsibility of the mother/father, and if they don't want the baby then they can give that baby up for adoption, or ask someone else to care for the baby.

You know, the same answer we pro-lifer's give.

It's a matter of timing.  People against abortion are of the scientific understanding that the baby is a human life, viable unless someone sucks it into a blender or something, from about the 12th day (when it can no longer split into twins).  It is the responsibility of the mother to keep that baby alive until someone else can reasonably care for it.  It has nothing to do with slut shaming, or trying to force a woman to do what she voluntarily and willingly signed up for the potential of having happen.  It's about the personal responsibility one takes when one takes an action; and the belief that the human result of that action is not guilty of a crime that justifies killing.

I am a religious person, but my arguments are not based on my sense of Christian morality.  My belief on laws is based on what American laws should be based upon - secular beliefs.  From a purely secular point of view, it is inherently wrong for one person to kill another without justifiable provocation.  "Life of the mother" is justifiable provocation, because that is a self-defense abortion.  Rape/incest does not make the mother responsible for the child, because she did not willingly take an action to become pregnant.  Therefore, that <3% of abortions can be taken off the table and reasonably, secularly, considered viable options for the mother legally.  The elective abortions can in no good way be considered viable legal options if one looks at it from a logical and not emotional point of view.

I've heard Vrai's arguments about bad homes and bad mothers and the costs associated with future jail statistics of kids from single/poor mothers, etc.  Unless we are willing to conduct genocide of the poor and illegitimate, we can not condone aborting them for that reason, either.


----------



## glhs837

I didnt say life, hell, eggs and sperm are alive. I used human and being. The bugs that run into my windshield are life. Hell, cancer cells are alive. So I"ll never be aboard the "It's a human when conception happens" train. The issue with your no govt invovlment is that as we've seen, it leads to people killing what anyone would agree are viable human beings legally simply becuase they are "inside the wrapper". My point was that we should be able to rationally discuss and agree on a point beyond which we are indeed "forcing" that woman to keep the small human life inside of her alive. Becuase that humans rights shouldn't magically only appear after it draws breath and the cord is cut.  Where does it start being a human? Answer that question, state an opinion. Becuase where it stops being a thing and starts being a person is the crux of it, to me anyway.


----------



## Clem72

glhs837 said:


> I'm not religious in any way, so that's not part of my thinking process, I have no issues with the morning after pill, or even abortions to a certain point, but past a certain point, that's another human in there. And a lot of us think that humans have rights. One of which is to not be killed just becuase you are still helpless inside the wrapper.



I have the same sentiments. To set up a probably not perfect thought experiment, if you had conjoined twins and their separation would kill one of them, would you let the other have the only decision as to whether or not they are separated as it's "their body, their choice".


----------



## This_person

Clem72 said:


> I have the same sentiments. To set up a probably not perfect thought experiment, if you had conjoined twins and their separation would kill one of them, would you let the other have the only decision as to whether or not they are separated as it's "their body, their choice".


That's an interesting thought experiment, as parents are asked to do just that - pick one.  That leaves the life/death of another person up to the parent.

But, we're talking <20,000 cases per year of conjoined twins at all, and only 1% (<200) of those survive to even consider any surgery or anything like that.  In contrast, in 2014, Guttmacher reports over 926,000 abortions in the United States, or 4,631 times the number of abortions as conjoined twins that survive.


----------



## Sapidus

Yooper said:


> I honestly don't believe that's the case (i.e., that people here on the forum don't believe in/support personal choice when it comes to one's personal medical affairs).
> 
> What I do believe is the case is this....
> 
> For those (of us) who have expressed disagreement with abortion the essential question that hasn't been answered by those who are pro-abortion is how one squares the circle that the object being removed is NOT part of the women's body (like a kidney, pancreas, lung, etc.). The object has its own DNA; it is a unique entity. That in and of itself means the argument "my body, my choice" (or, to use your words, "personal choice to make their own medical decisions") is logically flawed: there isn't just one "being" involved.
> 
> If we want to argue that this "other being" isn't a person, etc., then let's have that discussion. But to claim that only one "being" is involved (so this is a strictly personal thing) is not just disingenuous it's factually incorrect.
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother it is not a separate life form.   The youngest that is possible is around 22 weeks.  Up until the point the fetus is wholly dependent on nutrients, oxygen and protection inside the uterus. 

I have no problem outlawing abortion after 22 weeks except in the cases where continuing with the pregnancy would put the mothers life at risk.


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother it is not a separate life form.



Please provide the source for this definition of "viable" - or even of "separate life form".

TYIA


----------



## Sapidus

This_person said:


> Please provide the source for this definition of "viable" - or even of "separate life form".
> 
> TYIA




Please educate yourself if you want to have a discussion about pregnancy and abortion.

"The *earliest* a baby has been born and *survived* is 21 weeks and 5 days. Two premature babies hold the record for this. Surprisingly, the first record holder was born in 1987, a time when the medical care of premature babies (neonatology) was a very new field. However, this is well before the accepted age of viability."









						What’s The Earliest A Baby Can Be Born And Survive?
					

Perhaps you’re facing a high-risk pregnancy, or you’re pregnant after a previous loss, and now you’re wondering how early a




					www.bellybelly.com.au
				




Prior to that there is something called the umbilical cord without which the fetus can't grow or survive.


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> Please educate yourself if you want to have a discussion about pregnancy and abortion.
> 
> "The *earliest* a baby has been born and *survived* is 21 weeks and 5 days. Two premature babies hold the record for this. Surprisingly, the first record holder was born in 1987, a time when the medical care of premature babies (neonatology) was a very new field. However, this is well before the accepted age of viability."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What’s The Earliest A Baby Can Be Born And Survive?
> 
> 
> Perhaps you’re facing a high-risk pregnancy, or you’re pregnant after a previous loss, and now you’re wondering how early a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bellybelly.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to that there is something called the umbilical cord without which the fetus can't grow or survive.


I'm well-versed in where you got 22 weeks from.  That's not what I asked.  I'll ask again:

Given that you defined "separate life form" as "Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother", please provide the source of that definition.  Given that the legally (per SCOTUS in _Casey_) allowed time when abortion may be restricted is prior to "viability", please provide "22 weeks" as the definition of "viable".

Because, the _*actual*_ legal definition of viable fetus is (a) variable by state and (b) generally considered something to the effect of "capable of life".


----------



## Sapidus

This_person said:


> I'm well-versed in where you got 22 weeks from.  That's not what I asked.  I'll ask again:
> 
> Given that you defined "separate life form" as "Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother", please provide the source of that definition.  Given that the legally (per SCOTUS in _Casey_) allowed time when abortion may be restricted is prior to "viability", please provide "22 weeks" as the definition of "viable".
> 
> Because, the _*actual*_ legal definition of viable fetus is (a) variable by state and (b) generally considered something to the effect of "capable of life".




Ok. Going by your definition has there ever been a fetus capable of life before 21 weeks and 5 days?

If so prove it.

By your definition a sperm is capable of life.  Is masturbation therefore murder?


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> Ok. Going by your definition has there ever been a fetus capable of life before 21 weeks and 5 days?
> 
> If so prove it.



Are you alive?  If so, before you were 21 weeks and 5 days in the womb, you were viable.



> By your definition a sperm is capable of life.  Is masturbation therefore murder?



A sperm is not a separate living being with unique DNA from the host.  A fetus is.  A fetus is a separate individual human being from the mother or father.  Clipping your nails or cutting your hair or masturbating or spitting or bleeding or cutting out a tumor or....none of the stupid analogies you can provide include a separate human being from the mother/father as defined by a unique life with a separate DNA that is human.

I'm glad you're asking questions, though, because it proves you want to learn.

So, back to the previous question:

Given that you defined "separate life form" as "Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother", please provide the source of that definition.  Given that the legally (per SCOTUS in _Casey_) allowed time when abortion may be restricted is prior to "viability", please provide "22 weeks" as the definition of "viable".


----------



## Sapidus

This_person said:


> Are you alive?  If so, before you were 21 weeks and 5 days in the womb, you were viable.
> 
> 
> 
> A sperm is not a separate living being with unique DNA from the host.  A fetus is.  A fetus is a separate individual human being from the mother or father.  Clipping your nails or cutting your hair or masturbating or spitting or bleeding or cutting out a tumor or....none of the stupid analogies you can provide include a separate human being from the mother/father as defined by a unique life with a separate DNA that is human.
> 
> I'm glad you're asking questions, though, because it proves you want to learn.
> 
> So, back to the previous question:
> 
> Given that you defined "separate life form" as "Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother", please provide the source of that definition.  Given that the legally (per SCOTUS in _Casey_) allowed time when abortion may be restricted is prior to "viability", please provide "22 weeks" as the definition of "viable".




As usually you move the goal post when you are proven wrong.

Your previous definition was capable of life.   So grinding a peanut for peanut butter would be a mortal sin.   As would masturbation.  

If no prior fetus has ever lived after birth before roughly 22 weeks.  That is the known threshold for viability.  

That is a statement of fact despite what you may believe or how you chose to interpret things


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> As usually you move the goal post when you are proven wrong.
> 
> Your previous definition was capable of life.   So grinding a peanut for peanut butter would be a mortal sin.   As would masturbation.


"Life", in the case of law regarding humans, is a separate, individual human life.  You never proved me wrong on a single thing, ever.

Given that you defined "separate life form" as "Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother", please provide the source of that definition.  



Sapidus said:


> If no prior fetus has ever lived after birth before roughly 22 weeks.  That is the known threshold for viability.
> 
> That is a statement of fact despite what you may believe or how you chose to interpret things


That is the known threshold for viability *outside the womb*.  Where is the definition for viability, legally speaking, that says it MUST be outside the womb.  Where is the *medical* definition for viability outside the womb?


----------



## Sapidus

This_person said:


> "Life", in the case of law regarding humans, is a separate, individual human life.  You never proved me wrong on a single thing, ever.
> 
> Given that you defined "separate life form" as "Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother", please provide the source of that definition.
> 
> 
> That is the known threshold for viability *outside the womb*.  Where is the definition for viability, legally speaking, that says it MUST be outside the womb.  Where is the *medical* definition for viability outside the womb?




Are you dumb?   Or do you believe in miracles?   How would a fetus survive outside the womb below 22 weeks?  Where is this fetus being hosted?


If its already outside the womb doesnt that negate the need for an abortion?

Do you stop and think before you type or are you so hung up on being correct you have lost the plot?


----------



## MiddleGround

black dog said:


> I'm as serious as a heart attack.... For starters just the fact that so many here believe that *one shouldn't have the personal choice to make their own medical decisions.*



With respects to abortion, I think the choice should be made by BOTH of the parents. If it takes two to make it then, it should take 2 to make the decisions. As it stands right now, once the child is conceived , all of the decision making is taken out of the hands of the father and given solely to the mother. Once that little darling drops from the mother well... THEN... it's a whole different story. Now, it's the father's (mostly financial) burden.

Scenario: 2 kids get it on and make a baby. Took BOTH of them to do this. Shortly after this, the girl is now pregnant. Neither the mother or the father are in a situation where raising the child is a good idea. The father thinks abortion should be considered. Mom says "No Way!" Dad is powerless to do anything at this point. Mom carries baby to term and gives birth. Mom now realizes that she is in no position to raise the child at all. Now, it is Dad that all of the sudden is relevant in the decisions regarding raising the child and it's welfare.


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> Are you dumb?   Or do you believe in miracles?   How would a fetus survive outside the womb below 22 weeks?  Where is this fetus being hosted?
> 
> 
> If its already outside the womb doesnt that negate the need for an abortion?





Why, yes, yes it would.

Why is the fetus in the womb not viable?  Unless you take extraordinary action to remove it from the womb, it's generally viable.

In other words, the fetus IS viable in the womb.  Why must it be removed from the womb to consider why it is or is not viable?  And, since 22 weeks is arbitrary, why would you be ok with an arbitrary date?  I mean, what if there is a transplant from one mother to another at 6 weeks - should we assume 6 weeks as the cutoff for legal abortion?

IVF produces a human outside the womb, and then inserts it into a womb at 2-6 days.  Should 2-6 days be considered the maximum for abortion?

Given that you defined "separate life form" as "Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother", please provide the source of that definition.


----------



## This_person

MiddleGround said:


> With respects to abortion, I think the choice should be made by BOTH of the parents. If it takes two to make it then, it should take 2 to make the decisions. As it stands right now, once the child is conceived , all of the decision making is taken out of the hands of the father and given solely to the mother. Once that little darling drops from the mother well... THEN... it's a whole different story. Now, it's the father's (mostly financial) burden.
> 
> Scenario: 2 kids get it on and make a baby. Took BOTH of them to do this. Shortly after this, the girl is now pregnant. Neither the mother or the father are in a situation where raising the child is a good idea. The father thinks abortion should be considered. Mom says "No Way!" Dad is powerless to do anything at this point. Mom carries baby to term and gives birth. Mom now realizes that she is in no position to raise the child at all. Now, it is Dad that all of the sudden is relevant in the decisions regarding raising the child and it's welfare.


If it were not for the actually killing of a human to conduct an abortion, I would agree with the concept.  Same is true for whether or not to give up for adoption - mom should have to offer to the father first in all cases outside of rape/incest.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> In other words, the fetus IS viable in the womb.  Why must it be removed from the womb to consider why it is or is not viable?  And, since 22 weeks is arbitrary, why would you be ok with an arbitrary date?  I mean, what if there is a transplant from one mother to another at 6 weeks - should we assume 6 weeks as the cutoff for legal abortion?



Not always. Doctors can determine early on if the fetus will be viable outside the womb. It doesn;t HAVE to be removed. 

WV is the only state that says 22 weeks. Most are 20 weeks (some 24). And it's at least based on some level of science and not totally arbitrary but practically-speaking, these limits are set by each state. Much like gun laws (i.e. magazine limits, a real arbitrary number), states can set those numbers.


----------



## Sapidus

This_person said:


> Why, yes, yes it would.
> 
> Why is the fetus in the womb not viable?  Unless you take extraordinary action to remove it from the womb, it's generally viable.
> 
> In other words, the fetus IS viable in the womb.  Why must it be removed from the womb to consider why it is or is not viable?  And, since 22 weeks is arbitrary, why would you be ok with an arbitrary date?  I mean, what if there is a transplant from one mother to another at 6 weeks - should we assume 6 weeks as the cutoff for legal abortion?
> 
> IVF produces a human outside the womb, and then inserts it into a womb at 2-6 days.  Should 2-6 days be considered the maximum for abortion?
> 
> Given that you defined "separate life form" as "Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother", please provide the source of that definition.




Its like arguing with a vat of slow drying cement.

If the fetus can not live without being attached to the host to provide all of its needs it is not viable


----------



## GURPS

Sapidus said:


> If the fetus can not live without being attached to the host to provide all of its needs it is not viable




it is a baby, 

Is it or is it not a separate life ... does the baby have a heart beat, does if feel pain, have a distinct DNA separate from the mother ? ?

just Man up Pussy admit you are OK with the murder of unborn children 



*1965 - Life Begins at Conception*


Despite Democrats’ recent horrendous push to pass legislation that broaden abortion laws, they once accepted the fact that life begins at conception. In 1994, the federal advisory board appointed by former President Bill Clinton, affirmed that “The preimplantation human embryo warrants serious moral consideration as a developing form of human life.”

The fact that human life begins at conception has also been confirmed by medical professionals for years. A 2014 research brief on the scientific view of when life begins, published by the Charlotte Lozier Institute stated: “Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way.  Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow ‘generate’ the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious ‘manufacturer’ directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life.  This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.”

A study published in March 2017 by the American College of Pediatricians stated: “The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature.”


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> Its like arguing with a vat of slow drying cement.
> 
> If the fetus can not live without being attached to the host to provide all of its needs it is not viable


Huh, so you're saying it is viable so long as it is attached to the mother?


Given that you defined "separate life form" as "Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother", please provide the source of that definition.


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> Not always. Doctors can determine early on if the fetus will be viable outside the womb. It doesn;t HAVE to be removed.
> 
> WV is the only state that says 22 weeks. Most are 20 weeks (some 24). And it's at least based on some level of science and not totally arbitrary but practically-speaking, these limits are set by each state. Much like gun laws (i.e. magazine limits, a real arbitrary number), states can set those numbers.


My point is that if it is not removed it is likely viable, and can be determined to be viable well before 22 weeks, as you suggest.

In other words, based on _Casey_'s "viability" standard, if the courts were to assume "viability" in terms of staying in the womb vice being removed, "viability" is far earlier than 22 (or 20, or 24) weeks.


----------



## Plutarch

Sapidus said:


> can not live without being attached to the host to provide all of its needs it is not viable



Like a Bernie voter.


----------



## Sapidus

This_person said:


> *My point is that if it is not removed it is likely viable*, and can be determined to be viable well before 22 weeks, as you suggest.
> 
> In other words, based on _Casey_'s "viability" standard, if the courts were to assume "viability" in terms of staying in the womb vice being removed, "viability" is far earlier than 22 (or 20, or 24) weeks.




Your point above is false.   Can you please show where a fetus born before 21 weeks and 5 days has survived.  

Why do you keeping claiming it is "likely viable before 22 weeks" when there is absolutely no evidence of that?


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> Your point above is false.   Can you please show where a fetus *born *before 21 weeks and 5 days has survived.



Why does it have to be BORN?  Where does "BORN" come to play in _Casey_, the case that established "viable"?



> Why do you keeping claiming it is "likely viable before 22 weeks" when there is absolutely no evidence of that?



There IS evidence of it.  Every walking human was in the room before 22 weeks, and is alive today.  Thus, before 22 weeks, they were "viable" to survive if just left in the womb and not sucked into a blender.


----------



## Sapidus

This_person said:


> Why does it have to be BORN?  Where does "BORN" come to play in _Casey_, the case that established "viable"?
> 
> 
> 
> There IS evidence of it.  Every walking human was in the room before 22 weeks, and is alive today.  Thus, before 22 weeks, they were "viable" to survive if just left in the womb and not sucked into a blender.




So by your logic every sperm and egg ever had the potential to become life and be  born so masturbation and a woman period are both murder.

You had the potential to become president but you didnt or an astronaut doesnt mean it was an actual option or it was  going to happen.


Stop mistaking possibilities for actualities


----------



## GURPS

Sapidus said:


> So by your logic every sperm and egg ever had the potential to become life and be born so masturbation and a woman period are both murder.



 but no Life does not start until the moment on conception


Genesis 38:9-10 

Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.

But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.


----------



## Sapidus

GURPS said:


> but no Life does not start until the moment on conception
> 
> 
> Genesis 38:9-10
> 
> Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.
> 
> But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.




So you believe the laws in this country should be based on a fictional book of fairy tales dictated by a flying sky monster?


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> So by your logic every sperm and egg ever had the potential to become life and be  born so masturbation and a woman period are both murder.



Nope.  And, I have specifically refuted the ill-considered "masturbation" argument to you in this thread, so you already know that.  You are trying to resurrect a strawman that has already been killed by me.



> You had the potential to become president but you didnt or an astronaut doesnt mean it was an actual option or it was  going to happen.
> 
> Stop mistaking possibilities for actualities



I stopped a long time ago.  I stopped thinking the possibility that you could understand viability is an actuality.  I stopped mistaking the possibility of having a reasonable discussion with you is an actuality.  That's why you deserve no respect - you provide no respect, and no respectability.

Given that you defined "separate life form" as "Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother", please provide the source of that definition.


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> So you believe the laws in this country should be based on a fictional book of fairy tales dictated by a flying sky monster?


First you ask when Jesus said something, now you're saying to NOT listen to what Jesus says.

Dude (or dudette, whichever is appropriate) you need to find a point and try and stick with it!!

Given that you defined "separate life form" as "Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother", please provide the source of that definition.


----------



## Sapidus

This_person said:


> Nope.  And, I have specifically refuted the ill-considered "masturbation" argument to you in this thread, so you already know that.  You are trying to resurrect a strawman that has already been killed by me.
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped a long time ago.  I stopped thinking the possibility that you could understand viability is an actuality.  I stopped mistaking the possibility of having a reasonable discussion with you is an actuality.  That's why you deserve no respect - you provide no respect, and no respectability.
> 
> Given that you defined "separate life form" as "Until the fetus can thrive on its own while being fully detached from the mother", please provide the source of that definition.




You said the fact that we all were here now and alive proved that we were viable at say 15 weeks.  

That is a assumption based on flawed logic.   If we were to sue that same logic an egg or a sperm is also proof of viability since it is alive and it proceeded our lives.

It is not possible to have an honest discussion with you because you are caught up in your beliefs and therefore don't see the facts.

The fact is that no fetus has ever survived before 22 weeks.   That is the current threshold for viable life.   If through some scientific breakthrough it becomes possible earlier at some point great.  

But for now that is the data and facts we have to work with.  Scientifically a fetus is no different before 22 weeks than  clump of cells.

It has no wants, it can not feed, hydrate, breathe or live without being physically attached to its mother for all its needs.   It is part of the woman body and she is the only one , along with her doctor, capable of deciding what is best for her and whether to terminate the pregnancy or go forward.


----------



## Gilligan

Sapidus said:


> It is part of the woman body and she is the only one , along with her doctor, capable of deciding what is best for her and whether to terminate the pregnancy or go forward.



Any idea why it would take 5 1/2 months to decide?


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> You said the fact that we all were here now and alive proved that we were viable at say 15 weeks.
> 
> That is a assumption based on flawed logic.   If we were to sue that same logic an egg or a sperm is also proof of viability since it is alive and it proceeded our lives.



It did not exist as a separate human life form as us.  That makes it different.

I can repeatedly explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.  YOU have to put the effort in to do that.



> It is not possible to have an honest discussion with you because you are caught up in your beliefs and therefore don't see the facts.
> 
> The fact is that no fetus has ever survived before 22 weeks.



Outside the womb?  Sure.  But, that puts an unreasonable standard on the fetus.  There's no reason it has to be outside the womb unless someone takes it out.  If it stays in the womb, it is much more likely to survive.



> But for now that is the data and facts we have to work with.  Scientifically a fetus is no different before 22 weeks than  clump of cells.



Except of course for the human DNA, the heart pumping, the eyes, the fingernails - essentially the full appearance of a skinny human at 21 weeks.  Pancreas, digestive system....you know, a full human being developed.

You have no scientific source for saying this, so I won't ask you to provide your source for this.  I know it doesn't exist.



> It has no wants, it can not feed, hydrate, breathe or live without being physically attached to its mother for all its needs.   It is part of the woman body and she is the only one , along with her doctor, capable of deciding what is best for her and whether to terminate the pregnancy or go forward.



Except that it IS feeding, it IS hydrating, it IS breathing, it IS living.  The mother willingly placed it there.  It IS a human by every scientific definition.

Here's what that 22 week old "clump of cells" look like:


----------



## GURPS

Sapidus said:


> So you believe the laws in this country should be based on a fictional book of fairy tales dictated by a flying sky monster?



Where did I say that    

Why do you hate Muslims ?

Where do YOU Derive YOUR Morals and Ethics ?



Sapidus said:


> Tt is not possible to have an honest discussion with you because you are caught up in your beliefs and therefore don't see the facts.



YOU Offer NO Facts, only conjecture and Fantasy



Sapidus said:


> The fact is that no fetus has ever survived before 22 weeks.



When does LIFE Start ?



Sapidus said:


> But for now that is the data and facts we have to work with. Scientifically a fetus is no different before 22 weeks than clump of cells.



Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and ASSUMPTION


----------



## rmorse

I always found the 22 weeks argument to be amusing...a fetus at 22 weeks can not automatically survive outside the womb.  Nor can one at 40 weeks.  Don't believe me? Pop out a baby and set it on the ground and see how long it survives on its own.

That 22 weeks thing is made possible by modern medicine, as well as money.  In not as prosperous locations around the world, that number is significantly higher.  Yet people cling to it like its a be-all/end-all because they don't like the idea of having to determine when a bundle of cells becomes a human.

If in ten years we develop the technology that enables 21 week old fetuses to reliably survive outside the womb, does that change when they become a life?


----------



## MiddleGround

Sapidus said:


> It is part of the woman body and she is the only one , along with her doctor, capable of deciding what is best for her and whether to terminate the pregnancy or go forward.



Regardless of what the father says huh? He only gets included in the decisions (and burdens of child raising) AFTER the mother delivers huh?


----------



## GURPS

rmorse said:


> Yet people cling to it like its a be-all/end-all because they don't like the idea of having to determine when a bundle of cells becomes a human.




The Courts long ago decided life begins at conception


----------



## GURPS

MiddleGround said:


> Regardless of what the father says huh? He only gets included in the decisions (and burdens of child raising) AFTER the mother delivers huh?



Yep just an ATM


----------



## Sapidus

MiddleGround said:


> Regardless of what the father says huh? He only gets included in the decisions (and burdens of child raising) AFTER the mother delivers huh?




Yeah. When a man carries a fetus to term inside his body he gets an equal say in the matter.   He got his say when he decide to evacuate inside the woman.  That is called consent.  He could have taken steps to avoid it and he chose not to.   .


----------



## Sapidus

This_person said:


> It did not exist as a separate human life form as us.  That makes it different.
> 
> I can repeatedly explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.  YOU have to put the effort in to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Outside the womb?  Sure.  But, that puts an unreasonable standard on the fetus.  There's no reason it has to be outside the womb unless someone takes it out.  If it stays in the womb, it is much more likely to survive.
> 
> 
> 
> Except of course for the human DNA, the heart pumping, the eyes, the fingernails - essentially the full appearance of a skinny human at 21 weeks.  Pancreas, digestive system....you know, a full human being developed.
> 
> You have no scientific source for saying this, so I won't ask you to provide your source for this.  I know it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it IS feeding, it IS hydrating, it IS breathing, it IS living.  The mother willingly placed it there.  It IS a human by every scientific definition.
> 
> Here's what that 22 week old "clump of cells" look like:
> View attachment 137404




God your idiocy is tiresome.  

Show me where a fetus survived younger than 22 weeks.  If you can’t then you can’t prove it is possible or that the fetus is viable or even alive for that matter.


----------



## Gilligan

Sapidus said:


> Yeah. When a man carries a fetus to term inside his body he gets an equal say in the matter.   He got his say when he decide to evacuate inside the woman.  That is called consent.  He could have taken steps to avoid it and he chose not to.   .


LOL. You LBGT folks sure have funny ways of looking at things,  Not "ha ha" funny though...


----------



## my-thyme

When DIL was put on bed rest, they told her if she gave birth before the 25th week of pregnancy, no effort would be made to save the child.

Little girl was born at 25 wk, 2 days. Today she is 12 yrs old and healthy as a horse.


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> God your idiocy is tiresome.
> 
> Show me where a fetus survived younger than 22 weeks.  If you can’t then you can’t prove it is possible or that the fetus is viable or *even alive for that matter.*


  you believe that, don't you?


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> Yeah. When a man carries a fetus to term inside his body he gets an equal say in the matter.   He got his say when he decide to evacuate inside the woman.  That is called consent.  He could have taken steps to avoid it and he chose not to.   .


Did she have equal consent?


----------



## black dog

MiddleGround said:


> Regardless of what the father says huh? *He only gets included in the decisions (and burdens of child raising) *AFTER the mother delivers huh?


Yes, It matters not what the donor wants. It was HIS decision to release his seed up in there, He knew this before he released his seed inside her,
 HE should have made better decisions, If a man doesn't want to pay child support and be a parent, they should be more careful on where they make deposits.


----------



## Yooper

Sapidus said:


> *(a)* ...it is not a separate life form. *(b)* ...the fetus is wholly dependent.


I think it is helpful to remember that *(b)* does not make *(a)* true. While *(b)* is certainly true, *(a)* is most certainly not (it IS a separate life form).

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Yooper

black dog said:


> Yes, It matters not what the donor wants. It was HIS decision to release his seed up in there, He knew this before he released his seed inside her,
> HE should have made better decisions, If a man doesn't want to pay child support and be a parent, they should be more careful on where they make deposits.


Isn't this the reasoning where some courts have found sperm donors liable for child support?

In any event (and for a multitude of reasons in addition to this thread subject), I couldn't agree more: that menfolk "should be more careful on where they make deposits."

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## black dog

Yooper said:


> *Isn't this the reasoning where some courts have found sperm donors liable for child support?*
> 
> In any event (and for a multitude of reasons in addition to this thread subject), I couldn't agree more: that menfolk "should be more careful on where they make deposits."
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



 I didn't think about that when I posted. And yes, it seems so simple to prevent buy one controlling a simple deposit.
But its so difficult for some to grasp. Control you seed boys.....


----------



## GURPS

Sapidus said:


> Show me where a fetus survived younger than 22 weeks.




Life Begins at the moment of conception


----------



## black dog

GURPS said:


> Life Begins at the moment of conception



One would think if thats truly the case, child support should start then, and end at either an abortion or when the child becomes of age depending on what state they live in. 

 How much would that have cost you?


----------



## Sapidus

GURPS said:


> Life Begins at the moment of conception




Prove it.   Is a sperm not alive?   Is an egg not alive?


----------



## littlelady

Sapidus said:


> Prove it.   Is a sperm not alive?   Is an egg not alive?



Ok.  That cinches it.  You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are clueless.  

Your posts, over time, reminded me of this song.  



And, I am seeing now how Youtube is censoring.  It took me several tries to post this video, and I am not sure it will show up.  Welcome to America.  Land of the free, or not.  I am going to try to add this one, too.


----------



## BOP

seekeroftruth said:


> They are covered by the law.  Medical emergencies that will endanger the mother or child are acceptable measures under the law.  Of course some doctors will lie.... and when they are found to be blatant liars offering abortion on demand.... then they are the ones that will do the 99 years......
> 
> This is all smoke an mirrors to get your minds off of other issues.  This "strict" law doesn't change anything.....  AND wasn't Roe V Wade about the father's right?  Wasn't Roe V Wade about a man who wanted to save his child from the abortionist.... in spite of the woman's desire?
> 
> The people at Planned Parenthood will still have baby body parts for the black market.... only now they will have to be a little more discreet and claim it's for "medical testing".... yep like doesn't the client want a 7 month fetus?..... to make the arm fit.... gross but that's what this is really about.... In my humble opinion....


It's also the single greatest wedge issue there is in order to divide women and keep at least some of them from voting conservative (or at least Republican, which is as close as we can get to conservative).


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> Yes, It matters not what the donor wants. It was HIS decision to release his seed up in there, He knew this before he released his seed inside her,
> HE should have made better decisions, If a man doesn't want to pay child support and be a parent, they should be more careful on where they make deposits.


I personally feel the same way about women as you do about men (we agree on men's role as well).  If she doesn't want to risk having a kid, don't do the deed.  If she does, of course she is responsible to handle the consequences - without killing anybody.


----------



## This_person

Sapidus said:


> Prove it.   Is a sperm not alive?   Is an egg not alive?


They are, but they are not separate human beings with their own independent DNA.

How many times do you need this explained?


----------



## Sapidus

Gilligan said:


> Any idea why it would take 5 1/2 months to decide?




Thats really not your concern.   However in some instances it is not possible to know until that point whether the pregnancy threatens the mothers life.


----------



## GURPS

Sapidus said:


> the pregnancy threatens the mothers life.




How many abortions are preformed for 

'the life of the mother'
'rape'
'incest'


vs just because the timing is 'inconvenient'


----------



## MiddleGround

black dog said:


> Yes, It matters not what the donor wants. It was HIS decision to release his seed up in there, He knew this before he released his seed inside her,
> HE should have made better decisions, If a man doesn't want to pay child support and be a parent, they should be more careful on where they make deposits.



HIS.. HIS.. HE should... HE should... almost sounds like you think the man is solely responsible for the decision making in the creation of a child. You don't sit on a Divorce court bench do you?

You absolve the mother completely and entirely in this? Is she responsible for ANYTHING in this matter? Do you wear a little pink beanie hat with a slit down the middle??


----------



## MiddleGround

Sapidus said:


> Yeah. When a man carries a fetus to term inside his body he gets an equal say in the matter.   He got his say when he decide to evacuate inside the woman.  That is called consent.  He could have taken steps to avoid it and he chose not to.   .



And when the woman decided to let the man "evacuate" inside of her.... guess what? THAT IS ALSO CALLED CONSENT! But, for some reason, people like you and black dog think it is OK to hold the man accountable but, not the woman. Why is that? Are you saying that women are not strong enough to handle having the power of consent?

Please explain your reasoning for us.....


----------



## Gilligan

Sapidus said:


> Thats really not your concern.   However in some instances it is not possible to know until that point whether the pregnancy threatens the mothers life.



Except for that rare instance, any idea why it would take 5 1/2 months to decide?


----------



## black dog

MiddleGround said:


> HIS.. HIS.. HE should... HE should... almost sounds like you think the man is solely responsible for the decision making in the creation of a child. You don't sit on a Divorce court bench do you?
> 
> You absolve the mother completely and entirely in this? Is she responsible for ANYTHING in this matter? Do you wear a little pink beanie hat with a slit down the middle??


You sound like a man that's been taken to the cleaners a few times in his s life over child support.  You didn't cry when you busted off up in their, don't cry when you have to write a check. 
 You seem to want both sides of the fence, no abortions and daddy not to be responsible for his share of raising the children.  LOL..


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> You sound like a man that's been taken to the cleaners a few times in his s life over child support.  You didn't cry when you busted off up in their, don't cry when you have to write a check.
> You seem to want both sides of the fence, no abortions and daddy not to be responsible for his share of raising the children.  LOL..


Do you feel that both parents have an equal responsibility for the life of the child they willingly create?


----------



## David

limblips said:


> pro-choicers


The first thing is to not let them reframe the argument by using their candy-coated label *Pro-Choice*. It is essentially a spin, propaganda. More realistic is *Pro-Abortion*.

Steny Hoyer reframed the whole argument in a press release the other day as he was *standing up against the Government Coming Between a Woman and Her Doctor*, thus trying to appeal to the right who doesn't generally like government interference and the  left who wants to frame the issue as one of health care. Neither point addresses the real issue.

Like with the *Affordable Care Act* which has caused *Care to be anything BUT Affordable*...

Or the *PATRIOT Act* which *no True Patriot* who ever read the thing would ever endorse.

This is why $$$ wins elections these days. He with the most money can buy the most propaganda. Of course, the lack of critical thinking is what makes propaganda effective.

P.S. It's also why the Democrat Party insists on being called the Democratic Party, because when people hear Democ*RAT* Party, *subconsciously people hear RAT*. True, look it up. DNC people have a crap fit when they're referred to as the Democ*RAT* Party, which is also why so many talking heads on the right use it


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> Do you feel that both parents have an equal responsibility for the life of the child they willingly create?


For Christ's sake how many times are we going to do this? 
NO... It's the woman's choice to give birth or abort..


----------



## black dog

David said:


> The first thing is to not let them reframe the argument by using their candy-coated label *Pro-Choice*. It is essentially a spin, propaganda. More realistic is *Pro-Abortion*.
> 
> Steny Hoyer reframed the whole argument in a press release the other day as he was *standing up against the Government Coming Between a Woman and Her Doctor*, thus trying to appeal to the right who doesn't generally like government interference and the  left who wants to frame the issue as one of health care. Neither point addresses the real issue.
> 
> Like with the *Affordable Care Act* which has caused *Care to be anything BUT Affordable*...
> 
> Or the *PATRIOT Act* which *no True Patriot* who ever read the thing would ever endorse.
> 
> This is why $$$ wins elections these days. He with the most money can buy the most propaganda. Of course, the lack of critical thinking is what makes propaganda effective.
> 
> P.S. It's also why the Democrat Party insists on being called the Democratic Party, because when people hear Democ*RAT* Party, *subconsciously people hear RAT*. True, look it up. DNC people have a crap fit when they're referred to as the Democ*RAT* Party, which is also why so many talking heads on the right use it




 The last election didn't work out that way.


----------



## David




----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> For Christ's sake how many times are we going to do this?
> NO... It's the woman's choice to give birth or abort..


I'm still trying to understand your position. 

You think that the father is responsible to the child from conception on.

You are smart enough to know that the baby is a separate human inside the mother. 

You accept that abortion kills a baby human. 

You are against killing baby humans. 

You believe a mother has the right to kill the baby human. 

It just doesn't add up.


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> I'm still trying to understand your position.
> 
> You think that the father is responsible to the child from conception on.
> 
> You are smart enough to know that the baby is a separate human inside the mother.
> 
> You accept that abortion kills a baby human.
> 
> You are against killing baby humans.
> 
> You believe a mother has the right to kill the baby human.
> 
> It just doesn't add up.



I'm Pro Abortion, more should be done than already are.
I'm for if a woman chooses to have a child the man has to financially pay his portion to raise said child.
Dont cry about it, pay your ****ing child support, and that goes for women as well if the man has parental custody.

I accept that an abortion kills a dot, embryo or fetus.
You misunderstand my Sarcasm in some of my posts for my opinion. I'm Pro Abortion.
I'm Pro Abortion. I could care less that a women has the right to have a dot, embryo or a fetus aborted.
I don't care when the abortion is done either. Its her choice.

 Does that clear it all up?


----------



## glhs837

black dog said:


> I'm Pro Abortion, more should be done than already are.
> I'm for if a woman chooses to have a child the man has to financially pay his portion to raise said child.
> Dont cry about it, pay your ****ing child support, and that goes for women as well if the man has parental custody.
> 
> I accept that an abortion kills a dot, embryo or fetus.
> You misunderstand my Sarcasm in some of my posts for my opinion. I'm Pro Abortion.
> I'm Pro Abortion. I could care less that a women has the right to have a dot, embryo or a fetus aborted.
> I don't care when the abortion is done either. Its her choice.
> 
> Does that clear it all up?




So as long as the head hasn't crowned, she can kill that small human for no reason at all? Got it. We'll have to disgree on that.


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> I'm Pro Abortion, more should be done than already are.
> I'm for if a woman chooses to have a child the man has to financially pay his portion to raise said child.
> Dont cry about it, pay your ****ing child support, and that goes for women as well if the man has parental custody.
> 
> I accept that an abortion kills a dot, embryo or fetus.
> You misunderstand my Sarcasm in some of my posts for my opinion. I'm Pro Abortion.
> I'm Pro Abortion. I could care less that a women has the right to have a dot, embryo or a fetus aborted.
> I don't care when the abortion is done either. Its her choice.
> 
> Does that clear it all up?


No. How do you reconcile killing a baby and being against murder?  Surely you are smart enough to know that dot is a baby human.


----------



## This_person

glhs837 said:


> So as long as the head hasn't crowned, she can kill that small human for no reason at all? Got it. We'll have to disgree on that.


He said he didn’t care when. He clearly supports the Northam concept of post-birth abortion as well.


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> No. How do you reconcile killing a baby and being against murder?  Surely you are smart enough to know that dot is a baby human.



Why do you care about my opinions? I could care less about yours on this topic. 
 I've justified lots of things in my life, and I will say that none of my father's children ever needed to justify an abortion, nor did any of us have a child out of wedlock. He taught all of us to control the seed...


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> Why do you care about my opinions? I could care less about yours on this topic.
> I've justified lots of things in my life, and I will say that none of my father's children ever needed to justify an abortion, nor did any of us have a child out of wedlock. He taught all of us to control the seed...


Because maybe I'm wrong.

We agree on control of the seed. I suspect we agree on control of the garden as well.  The science is indisputable that the flower is a human being, separate from the mother.  General human decency requires that killing a baby is wrong.

You seem like an intelligent and decent man, so I can not imagine where you would dispute any of what I said.  So I ask how you reach your conclusion to figure out what I might have wrong.


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> Because maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> We agree on control of the seed. I suspect we agree on control of the garden as well.  The science is indisputable that the flower is a human being, separate from the mother.  General human decency requires that killing a baby is wrong.
> 
> You seem like an intelligent and decent man, so I can not imagine where you would dispute any of what I said.  So I ask how you reach your conclusion to figure out what I might have wrong.



I could care less what science says about a dot a sack or an embryo, I dont care about the morality, the religious aspect or other folks opinions that try to change what I believe. 
Its a simple math fact that outlawing abortions quickly produces a huge surplus of children that the taxpayer has to pay for.
Every country that has outlawed abortion has a huge surplus of children living in orphanages, just like it was here before Row v Wade
I have witnessed it first hand here and abroad.
  I firmly believe that all medical decisions that a person makes in life is their own decision and no one else's.
 So lets just say, I'm not a decent man. I'm good with that.


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> I could care less what science says about a dot a sack or an embryo, I dont care about the morality, the religious aspect or other folks opinions that try to change what I believe.
> Its a simple math fact that outlawing abortions quickly produces a huge surplus of children that the taxpayer has to pay for.
> Every country that has outlawed abortion has a huge surplus of children living in orphanages, just like it was here before Row v Wade
> I have witnessed it first hand here and abroad.
> I firmly believe that all medical decisions that a person makes in life is their own decision and no one else's.
> So lets just say, I'm not a decent man. I'm good with that.


Well, I am not ready to line people on welfare up and shoot them, which is exactly the same as you think is ok with babies...too expensive to taxpayers, so killing them is fine. 

We can agree that I was wrong for thinking you're an intelligent and decent man.


----------



## PrchJrkr

Off topic, but the thought just came to me. In many cultures, non-producers are left to fend for themselves. Work or don't eat, much less reproduce and create mouths you can't afford to feed. It may be time to encourage lay abouts to abort...


----------



## GURPS

PrchJrkr said:


> It may be time to encourage lay abouts to *'self terminate' *...




:fixed:


----------



## MiddleGround

black dog said:


> You sound like a man that's been taken to the cleaners a few times in his s life over child support.  You didn't cry when you busted off up in their, don't cry when you have to write a check.
> You seem to want both sides of the fence, no abortions and daddy not to be responsible for his share of raising the children.  LOL..



Haha! Farthest from reality (no surprise there)

First of all, you obviously don't comprehend what people post on here. Where exactly did I say I was against abortion?

Second of all, I can only speculate from your responses that you enjoy being led around by the nose by whatever woman is in your life. "Yes dear!" "Anything you want dear." "You make all the decisions dear." 

Finally, you sound like a man who is over compensating and over justifying for "busting off up in their..." Just because you didn't like the outcome of your situation doesn't mean you have to force your suckage on every other man on the planet.


----------



## MiddleGround

black dog said:


> I'm Pro Abortion, more should be done than already are.
> I'm for if a woman chooses to have a child the man has to financially pay his portion to raise said child.
> Dont cry about it, pay your ****ing child support, and that goes for women as well if the man has parental custody.
> 
> I accept that an abortion kills a dot, embryo or fetus.
> You misunderstand my Sarcasm in some of my posts for my opinion. I'm Pro Abortion.
> I'm Pro Abortion. I could care less that a women has the right to have a dot, embryo or a fetus aborted.
> I don't care when the abortion is done either. Its her choice.
> 
> *Does that clear it all up?*



Not really.

Where do you stand on the man's (father) right to have a voice in the abortion decision? It quite obviously took BOTH of them to make the child. Does the man (father) have a voice in the decision?


----------



## MiddleGround

This_person said:


> Do you feel that both parents have an equal responsibility for the life of the child they willingly create?



It is quite clear (up to now) that his opinion on the matter is that the man only has decision making power prior to conception. Once conception occurs, the mother is allowed to lead him around by the nose until the child is around 18.


----------



## black dog

MiddleGround said:


> Not really.
> *
> Where do you stand on the man's (father) right to have a voice in the abortion decision*? It quite obviously took BOTH of them to make the child. Does the man (father) have a voice in the decision?


 Are you ****ing retarded or what?  For the 26th time.
*He has no say *about an abortion or live birth decision, none what so ever. *He waved his rights when he didnt control his seed and " Busted up in Their " *


----------



## black dog

MiddleGround said:


> It is quite clear (up to now) that his opinion on the matter is that the man only has decision making power prior to conception. Once conception occurs, the mother is allowed to lead him around by the nose until the child is around 18.


*I have to wonder what truly happened to you to even think that most men that have children out of wedlock can be lead around by the nose.*
Along with why paying his share of raising a child is a bad thing, Its just so easy to avoid in the first place, control your seed or get parental custody of the child and have her write the check.


----------



## MiddleGround

black dog said:


> Are you ****ing retarded or what?  For the 26th time.
> *He has no say *about an abortion or live birth decision, none what so ever. *He waved his rights when he didnt control his seed and " Busted up in Their " *





MiddleGround said:


> It is quite clear (up to now) that his opinion on the matter is that the man only has decision making power prior to conception. Once conception occurs, the mother is allowed to lead him around by the nose until the child is around 18.



Nailed it!


----------



## MiddleGround

black dog said:


> *I have to wonder what truly happened to you to even think that most men that have children out of wedlock can be lead around by the nose.*
> Along with why paying his share of raising a child is a bad thing, Its just so easy to avoid in the first place, control your seed or get parental custody of the child and have her write the check.



Are we specifying now? Does that mean men IN A MARRIAGE now have a decision in the process? Since you want to move the goal posts.


----------



## black dog

MiddleGround said:


> Are we specifying now? Does that mean men IN A MARRIAGE now have a decision in the process? Since you want to move the goal posts.


I haven't moved anything, married, single it makes no difference to me.
You are the one how posts that is a bad it is for a man to financially support a child he didn't want.


----------



## MiddleGround

black dog said:


> I haven't moved anything, married, single it makes no difference to me.
> *You are the one how posts that is a bad it is for a man to financially support a child he didn't want.*



Sorry but, that is how YOU interpreted it. My statement was that the man has no decisions after conception and that a man in no financial position to raise a child should have a say in the decision. It was YOU who interpretted that into "...it is a bad it is for a man to financially support a child he didn't want."

Please read and comprehend people's position on a matter before making your rebuttal.


----------



## black dog

MiddleGround said:


> Sorry but, that is how YOU interpreted it. My statement was that the man has no decisions after conception and that a man in no financial position to raise a child should have a say in the decision. It was YOU who interpretted that into "...it is a bad it is for a man to financially support a child he didn't want."
> 
> Please read and comprehend people's position on a matter before making your rebuttal.


 He had a say in the decision before intercourse happened,  and he made it when he didn't decline intercourse or spend a buck and buy a condom. he made a conscious decision to  " Busted up in Their "


----------



## MiddleGround

black dog said:


> He had a say in the decision before intercourse happened,  and he made it when he didn't decline intercourse or spend a buck and buy a condom. he made a conscious decision to  " Busted up in Their "



And she had a say in the decision before intercourse happened, and she made it when she didn't decline intercourse or insist that he use a condom. She made a conscious decision to let him "Busted up in their."

Are you saying that HIS decision making is not as important as HERS? Or, are you saying that her decision making should not be taken into account when two people make a child? It has to be one or the other...

Sounds like you still think the tango is a one person dance.


----------



## black dog

MiddleGround said:


> And she had a say in the decision before intercourse happened, and she made it when she didn't decline intercourse or insist that he use a condom. She made a conscious decision to let him "Busted up in their."
> 
> Are you saying that HIS decision making is not as important as HERS? Or, are you saying that her decision making should not be taken into account when two people make a child? It has to be one or the other...
> 
> Sounds like you still think the tango is a one person dance.



 I've made my opinion perfectly clear.


----------



## MiddleGround

black dog said:


> I've made my opinion perfectly clear.



Yes. You have. Forgive me for trying to understand your abrupt juxtaposition of opinions at the moment of conception. Just so I am clear on your stance...

Prior to conception... the MAN (father) has ALL of the decision making power.

Once that egg gets fertilized, the MAN's (father's) power is completely null and void and now, the WOMAN (mother) has complete power in decision making.

It is, at no time, a JOINT decision.

Is that correct? If it is, can you expand on your reasoning for such an abrupt ending and beginning to the decision power change?


----------



## black dog

MiddleGround said:


> Yes. You have. Forgive me for trying to understand your abrupt juxtaposition of opinions at the moment of conception. Just so I am clear on your stance...
> 
> Prior to conception... the MAN (father) has ALL of the decision making power.
> 
> Once that egg gets fertilized, the MAN's (father's) power is completely null and void and now, the WOMAN (mother) has complete power in decision making.
> 
> It is, at no time, a JOINT decision.
> 
> Is that correct? If it is, can you expand on your reasoning for such an abrupt ending and beginning to the decision power change?


Like I posted already, I have made my opinion perfectly clear multiple times here and in other abortion threads.


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> Like I posted already, I have made my opinion perfectly clear multiple times here and in other abortion threads.


Just a friendly piece of advice; when you admit that your opinion proves you are not a decent human being, and most everyone is confused by it, it may be time to reconsider your position


----------



## Yooper

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> Just a friendly piece of advice; when you admit that your opinion proves you are not a decent human being, and most everyone is confused by it, it may be time to reconsider your position


 *You just cant stop yourself from trying to shame me into believing what you believe. What a good Christian you are, you should be proud of yourself. #folkslikeyouarewhychurchsaredyinginamerica*
 I have no desire to impose what some think is a Christian morality issue on anyone, especially a Woman's Right to Choose.
Opinions are just like a$$holes, everyone has one. I could care less what other a$$holes think of my opinions and beliefs. 
Abortion and Prostitution have been around since what the first century roman, both will be here at the end of time.


----------



## SamSpade

black dog said:


> Abortion and Prostitution have been around since what the first century roman, both will be here at the end of time.



That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for their "rights" - of course, so has slavery, human sex trafficking, infanticide,
pedophilia and child abuse. 

All protected because society or persons insisted that certain people were either property
or otherwise had no rights at all that superseded the ones of the person abusing them.

And they are continued to be practiced, because someone thinks it is an imposition of religious morals
on their right to treat others as property or as otherwise - disposable.


----------



## black dog

SamSpade said:


> That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for their "rights" - of course, so has slavery, human sex trafficking, infanticide,
> pedophilia and child abuse
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't post it as an endorsement, it's a fact.
> Some things are perfectly leagal in parts of the USA, none of what you posted is legal here in the USA.
Click to expand...


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> *You just cant stop yourself from trying to shame me into believing what you believe. What a good Christian you are, you should be proud of yourself. #folkslikeyouarewhychurchsaredyinginamerica*
> I have no desire to impose what some think is a Christian morality issue on anyone, especially a Woman's Right to Choose.
> Opinions are just like a$$holes, everyone has one. I could care less what other a$$holes think of my opinions and beliefs.
> Abortion and Prostitution have been around since what the first century roman, both will be here at the end of time.


Please show where I suggested anything about my views on the legality of abortion has anything to do with religion, or any time I have suggested prostitution should be illegal. 

You are the one who acknowledged your view shows you are not a decent man.


----------



## SamSpade

A strange counter-argument, as we know that slavery was legal (as also many forms of racial discrimination) 
and it took a Constitutional amendment to outlaw it. There were people opposing it in this country almost
since its founding and continued determination to get rid of it led to war. Until such a time, its supporters
could continue to point to law.

EXISTENCE or precedent of bad law does not ever
validate them - it only serves to validate what is currently legal.


----------



## MiddleGround

This_person said:


> Please show where I suggested anything about my views on the legality of abortion has anything to do with religion, or any time I have suggested prostitution should be illegal.
> 
> You are the one who acknowledged your view shows you are not a decent man.



I just want to know why he thinks ALL decision making power should shift after the moment of conception  He keeps saying "The man should control his seed" but NEVER has said the woman should control her garden. I just want to know why he feels that the woman has ZERO responsibility before conception and ALL of the decision power after.


----------



## This_person

MiddleGround said:


> I just want to know why he thinks ALL decision making power should shift after the moment of conception  He keeps saying "The man should control his seed" but NEVER has said the woman should control her garden. I just want to know why he feels that the woman has ZERO responsibility before conception and ALL of the decision power after.


Maybe he doesn't understand that men and women are equals in all ways, and the only thing that stops rape is the fear of a child?  Given his reason for being okay with what he, himself, says makes him not a decent man is the taxpayer funding later in life (maybe), clearly he's ok with killing everyone on unemployment and welfare and SNAP and.... since they likely cost too much, too - or, might cost too much in the future (like the babies he's okay with killing due to their cost).  Given that level of indecency (his own characterization), we can only assume what stops him from rape is that he doesn't want to pay for a child, and thinks that what others feel, too.


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> Maybe he doesn't understand that men and women are equals in all ways, and the only thing that stops rape is the fear of a child?  Given his reason for being okay with what he, himself, says makes him not a decent man is the taxpayer funding later in life (maybe),* clearly he's ok with killing everyone on unemployment and welfare and SNAP and.... since they likely cost too much, too - or, might cost too much in the future (like the babies he's okay with killing due to their cost).  Given that level of indecency (his own characterization), we can only assume what stops him from rape is that he doesn't want to pay for a child, and thinks that what others feel, too.*


You truly need to seek some mental health help.


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> You truly need to seek some mental health help.


Just quoting you:


black dog said:


> Its a simple math fact that outlawing abortions quickly produces a huge surplus of children that the taxpayer has to pay for.
> So lets just say, I'm not a decent man. I'm good with that.


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> Just quoting you


Far from it, seek mental health help.


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> Far from it, seek mental health help.


You said you don't care that science shows that we're talking about babies, and that they end up costing taxpayers in orphanages.   I quoted you.


----------



## MiddleGround

It's not just a river in Africa anymore


----------



## Yooper

Because forceps kill more people each year than guns do.

Change my mind.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## AnthonyJames

SamSpade said:


> A strange counter-argument, as we know that slavery was legal (as also many forms of racial discrimination)
> and it took a Constitutional amendment to outlaw it. There were people opposing it in this country almost
> since its founding and continued *determination to get rid of it led to war*. Until such a time, its supporters
> could continue to point to law.
> 
> EXISTENCE or precedent of bad law does not ever
> validate them - it only serves to validate what is currently legal.


All this time I thought it was to preserve the Union. Dang


----------



## This_person

AnthonyJames said:


> All this time I thought it was to preserve the Union. Dang


The fight over "it was about State's rights" and "it was to keep/end slavery" will never end, with both sides having really good arguments.

The only thing one cannot argue (effectively) is that it was the end of the tenth amendment being considered something the federal government had to follow.


----------



## SamSpade

This_person said:


> The fight over "it was about State's rights" and "it was to keep/end slavery" will never end, with both sides having really good arguments.
> 
> The only thing one cannot argue (effectively) is that it was the end of the tenth amendment being considered something the federal government had to follow.



I keep hearing all the opposing arguments. They're red herrings. If slavery did not exist, the Civil War would not have happened.
The country elected a man who was an abolitionist - boom - the South separated. War is over, boom, amendments protecting blacks
and outlawing slavery. Lincoln may have claimed he was saving the Union, but one, there was no way to save it and continue on the
path of ending slavery. It's a diversion. It was all about slavery.

It IS sort of analogous to the abortion issue, though. One side wants to believe it's just about a woman's rights.
But not all of her rights - just the right to have an abortion. It's not about any other "right".
The other thinks it's about murder and a moral outrage. But if not for the aborting babies, no one would be discussing "rights".


----------



## ReadingTheNews

Why does it seem like this tread is made up of (approx.) 99% _men_?


----------



## Bird Dog

ReadingTheNews said:


> Why does it seem like this tread is made up of (approx.) 99% _men_?


Vagina envy.......


----------



## This_person

SamSpade said:


> If slavery did not exist, the Civil War would not have happened.



I'm really not convinced this is true, as South Carolina was pretty PO'd at joining the Union and the way the federal was encroaching on the State well before problems with slavery's future came out strong.

I'm equally not convinced it is NOT true, for all the reasons you mentioned.

All we know is that it would have been different, but I'm really not convinced it would not have happened.


----------



## This_person

ReadingTheNews said:


> Why does it seem like this tread is made up of (approx.) 99% _men_?


Our women are where they belong, in the kitchen doing dishes (by hand, I'm not buying my dishwasher a dishwasher), barefoot and pregnant, like they oughtta be.





(I presume that's what you presume the answer to be, anyway)


----------



## SamSpade

ReadingTheNews said:


> Why does it seem like this tread is made up of (approx.) 99% _men_?


Wet Paint.


----------



## SamSpade

This_person said:


> I'm really not convinced this is true, as South Carolina was pretty PO'd at joining the Union and the way the federal was encroaching on the State well before problems with slavery's future came out strong.



But these almost to the last had to do with - slavery. Anger over the lack of enforcement for fugitive slaves - anti-slavery decisions by the federal government. No surprise - at the time of the revolution, slaves were a majority, as they would be most years until and after the Civil War. It was always going to be an issue.

But they GAVE their reason for leaving - 

https://web.archive.org/web/20090201185344/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp 

And it's hard to dismiss that it ISN'T over a disagreement over slaves.


----------



## Merlin99

This_person said:


> I'm really not convinced this is true, as South Carolina was pretty PO'd at joining the Union and the way the federal was encroaching on the State well before problems with slavery's future came out strong.
> 
> I'm equally not convinced it is NOT true, for all the reasons you mentioned.
> 
> All we know is that it would have been different, but I'm really not convinced it would not have happened.


I tend to agree, I think it may have pushed back until the beginning of the 20th century though.


----------



## Hijinx

For someone who doesn't care about others opinions on this subject you sure spent a lot of time arguing your opinion.


----------

